Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)
Bapurao S/O Motiram Mankar vs Shri Vyankatesh Housing Agency on 10 March, 2010 cites

M/S. Shankar Finance & Investments vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 26 June, 2008

to the intending purchaser- Meenal as final settlement of her claim and the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:55 ::: 4 cheque in question (Exh.24) was given by him to the complainant as payee in discharge of legal liability to repay. The complainant as a father of intending purchaser Meenal was named as payee on the cheque and in view of the ruling in Shankar Finance Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: (2008) 8 SCC 536, was required to file the complaint in view of the Section 142 of the N.I.Act as payee or holder in due course. It was next contended that since one of the conditions to constitute the offence of section 138 of the N.I. Act is that a cheque should have been drawn for the discharge of a legally enforceable "debt or other liability" the complainant cannot be disabled from legally enforcing the debt or liability which arose from the agreement which could not lead to execution of the sale deed due to fault of the accused to fully perform his part in the agreement to execute the sale deed. Section 138 of the N.I. Act, no doubt, contemplates penal liability only when the cheque is drawn by a person "for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability". Explanation to Section 138 says that " for the purposes of this Section 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, the contention is quite forceful that for the commission of offence under section 138 of the N. I. Act, the cheque should have been drawn for discharging a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The next contention is that the debt would not cease to be legally enforceable merely because the transaction was intended by the complainant in the name and for the benefit of his daughter. It is contended that it was not illegal for the father who out of natural love and affection for his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:55 ::: 5 daughter, decided to pay under an agreement intending transaction of execution of sale deed in her favour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 234 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

11 On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent supported the judgment and order of the trial Magistrate and submitted that the acquittal was proper. Learned Advocate made reference to the ruling in Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde reported in 2008 Al MR (Cri) 1164 (SC) to argue that existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under section 139 of the Act. It was for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:55 ::: 8 complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. He further argued that presumption of innocence is human right and the trial Court did take a reasonable view of the facts to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao And Anr. on 7 October, 2005

In Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs. Kolla Veera Raghava & another reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 1, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the failure of the accused to give reply to the legal notice issued from the complainant is one of the strong circumstance to draw an inference that the accused had borrowed the amount from the complainant and the cheque was issued towards payment of the legally enforceable debt. If the complainant has misused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:41:55 ::: 11 the cheque or fabricated it, the accused is bound to immediately protest and threaten the complainant with legal action and would not wait until the conclusion of the trial without taking any action against the complainant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 58 - Full Document
1